Summary. Below is the full version of the movie adaptation of the book 1984 by George Orwell.

Summary. Below is a special 19 July 2010 video message from Gregory Johnson about Jay Shafer and the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company located in northern California, as recently featured on Yahoo. For more information, click here or the image to the right to purchase Jay Shafer’s Small House Book.

“In the past 48 to 72 hours, we’ve received over 30,000 unique visitors to our site seeking more information about simpler smaller living, and new visitors continue to arrive by the thousands every day. This is a clear indication of an increased interest in smaller, simpler, sustainable, and debt-free living.” ~ Gregory Johnson of the Small House Society

“People are looking for the exit ramp off the materialism highway, and they see the doorway of a tiny home as the doorway into a new life of stress free living. Gone are the days of curiosity seekers. These people are wanting to buy a small home immediately. The pain, weight, oppression, and burden of carrying several hundred thousand dollars in debt is becoming too great in our uncertain times.” ~ Gregory Johnson of the Small House Society

Summary. This page provides news and information about Jay Shafer, Proprietor of the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. On 15 July 2010, Jay was featured on the front page of Yahoo with a special edition of Yahoo Second Act Video Originals.

About. Jay Shafer is a social activist who, through his Tumbleweed Tiny House Company, works to improve the world of architecture, housing, art, esthetics, and low-impact community living. Jay simultaneously draws upon his experience and extensive knowledge of music, video, photography, art, politics, public speaking, teaching, religion, history, architecture, and literature. His impact on society is multifaceted and multidimensional. Those who encounter and embrace Jay’s philosophies typically have life transforming experiences that result in improved health, greater creativity, more effectiveness, better relationships, reduced materialism/consumerism, increased wealth, and general transcendence.

The Small House Book. Jay’s newest book, The Small House Book, is now available on the TumbleweedHouses.com website and has received positive reviews among those who have read it.

Learn More. To learn more about the small house movement, visit the Small House Society website.

Testimonial. Below is a testimonial about Jay Shafer from Gregory Johnson, Director of the ResourcesForLife.com website.

“I’ve known Jay since 2001 when I read about him in the Des Moines Register. In 2002, we founded the Small House Society. In 2003, I assisted Jay with the construction of my Mobile Hermitage tiny house, and that summer became one of his first small house customers. The genius behind Jay’s fusion of art and architecture became increasingly apparent over more than 5 years of living in one of his zero-maintenance homes. In addition to being skilled in his profession, Jay is pleasant to be with. He is inspiring, funny, intelligent, passionate, compassionate, caring, and sensitive to the world around him. In the summer of 2008, I had an opportunity to travel with Jay for three weeks as part of the Border to Border Tour. Before the trip, I was concerned about spending such an extended period of time on the road. I didn’t know if the long hours and tight quarters would stress us out. Yet, I discovered Jay was delightful to travel with. What could have been a stressful three weeks turned out to be enjoyable and relaxing. Jay’s chosen circle of friends and business parters, such as Steve Weissmann, are also compassionate, caring, competent, and a pleasure to be around.” – Gregory Johnson, Director of ResourcesForLife.com

Special Video Message. Below is a special 19 July 2010 video message from Gregory Johnson, a facilitator of the Small House Society. For more information about small living, visit the Small House Society.

Media. Below are selected news stories about Jay Shafer and the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company.

• CNN, American Morning, 22 October 2008. “Jay Shafer designs tiny homes and has even started a blog about living on less. His homes have a designer feel — interior wood paneling, stainless steel kitchens, built-in bookcases — packed into a space about the size of walk-in closets of upscale homes. His smallest home has 65 square feet; his biggest (a three-bedroom place) has 774 square feet.” [ Article | Video ]
• New York Times, 10 September 2008. “In July, Mr. Johnson, who lives in a 140-square-foot house made by the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company of Sebastopol, Calif., took to the road to promote his vision of living small, along with Jay Shafer, Tumbleweed’s founder. The two men drove from Victoria, British Columbia, to San Diego, pulling Mr. Shafer’s house behind them on a trailer.” [ Article ]
• ByDesign – ABC Radio National of Australia.  Jay Shafer and Gregory Johnson were joined by Matt Adams in an interview with Alan Saunders, the host of ByDesign. The show aired in Australia on Saturday at 9:00 am, 10 March 2007. [ Audio ]
• Oprah Winfrey, 20 February 2007. “Jay Shafer, founder of the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company, says living small is a luxury—and when he says living small, he means it. Jay’s entire house is only 96 square feet!” [ Article | Video ]

* * *

Document History. This document was originally published and posted on 20081024at1431. It was significantly updated on 20100719mo1833 after thousands of people had been visiting our site seeking more information.

“I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I’m frightened of the old ones.” ~ John Cage

Summary. Apple recently made world news because the antenna array on their iPhone 4 was reportedly providing irregular signal reception when touched. Supposedly, consumers and journalists worldwide were astonished to learn that touching an antenna would reduce signal strength.

• Update: On Friday, 16 July 2010, about two weeks after we first published this story, Steve Jobs held a press conference about the iPhone 4 antenna reception that reiterated what we said here. Apple has now published a web page (more eloquent and concise than ours) that documents mobile phone reception problems as industry-wide and includes videos to demonstrate it.

Hoax Exposed. Part of the iPhone 4 signal reception story is simply a well coordinated misinformation campaign and hoax launched by Apple competitors and those unfamiliar with antenna technology. The other part of the story is simply based on general truths about how mobile technology works. In summary, the iPhone 4 signal issue is an unfounded hoax, and so are the recent frivolous threats of class action lawsuits against Apple regarding the iPhone 4. This is all explained below.

Antenna History. Since the invention of the first radio devices in the late 1800s, it’s been common knowledge that the antenna of a radio receiver or transmitter should not be touched because this can interfere with reception and transmission. This knowledge was broadly disseminated worldwide during the forty years from 1970 to 2010 for anyone using CB radios, cordless phones, walkie talkies, handheld radios, televisions, and cellular phones. Anyone using an AM or FM radio knows the importance of antenna adjustment. Even walking near a radio can result in a faded signal. Television antennas known as “rabbit ears” and external array antennas were common for many decades in the late 20th century and continued to be in use early in the 21st century. For this reason, consumers became very aware of the importance of antenna positioning, direction, and placement. Antennas are designed to be a fraction (usually) of the wave they are receiving. Outside roof-top television antennas offer a visual image of varying antenna lengths corresponding with the wavelength of the frequencies they are designed to receive. Since the 1970s, consumers would purchase equipment from Radio Shack used to “Tune” CB antennas. Tuning a CB antenna is the process of lengthening or shortening it so that it’s length is optimally suited for channel 18 (a midway frequency in CB Radio broadcast and reception).

Signal Measurement. Because mobile phones and devices are transceivers (they receive and transmit), there are four considerations with signal measurement: incoming signal strength, incoming signal quality, outgoing signal strength, and outgoing signal quality. It is difficult to convey something as complex as the changing aggregate signal connection of a mobile device with only a 1 to 5 rating represented by some small bars. When any of these four properties are hindered (usually by obstructions), most devices attempt to boost transmission levels to compensate (which typically uses more battery). As the phone increases signal output, usually the connection (aggregate signal strength/quality) gets better. Signal strength is like volume is to music, whereas signal quality is how clear and accurate a signal is. Just as music can be loud but distorted, a radio signal can be strong, but have interference. Since mobile phone antenna towers are typically high in the air, interference is usually causes by obstructions in the proximity of the phone. Similarly, having sufficient signal strength from a mobile phone antenna tower is usually not a problem.

Exposed Metal Antenna Array Offers Breakthrough Design. Other than inexpensive walkie talkies with telescoping antennas, most portable transmitters and receivers have internal antennas or external extruding antennas with rubber or plastic insulation. The reason for this is to prevent direct conductive contact with the antenna. Here’s the trade-off: Internal antennas make sleek design possible yet have reduced performance, and external antennas get in the way yet can offer better reception and transmission by having a less obstructed antenna. According to technology specialist, Gregory Johnson, ”The exposed metal antenna array on the Apple iPhone 4 is a breakthrough in advanced antenna design that can either be protected by a simple case, or enhanced by third party antenna boosters.”

Building a Safer Mobile Phone. With concerns about RF radiation back in the news (Time Magazine, 10 March 2010), people are looking for ways to reduce their RF exposure. Because of its external metal antenna array, the iPhone 4 potentially offers the potential for lower RF exposure. You might think that a bare antenna could have greater possible RF emissions. However, the opposite is true (when used properly). A bare antenna has greater reception and transmission potential which lowers the phone’s need to transmit at higher output levels. Because proximity interference is a known potential issue for all mobile phones, many people choose to use a bluetooth headset and keep their phone at a distance. This also reduces any possible adverse impact of exposure to RF radiation in two ways: (1) reduced proximity obstructions increases signal quality and strength which decreases the required intensity of transmission output, (2) strength of RF radiation intensity is reduced substantially at even a small increase in distance.

Analysis and Commentary. Below is an analysis and commentary by Gregory Johnson.

“Having been granted a technician-class broadcasting license (N0YOD) from the Federal Communications Commission, I’m quite familiar with antenna technology. I grew up using AM, FM, CB, shortwave, and long-wave radio receivers and transmitters. So, I was immediately curious about Apple’s decision to place a metal, non-insulated multi-array antenna on the outside of their new iPhone 4.

After further research, I realized that the exposed metal antenna array on the Apple iPhone 4 is a breakthrough in advanced antenna design that can either be protected by a simple case, or effectively enhanced by third party antenna boosters — reducing battery drain. The problem with most antennas is that they are internal, or external but covered in plastic. The iPhone 4 antennas are conductively accessible, making it possible to connect a longer antenna of proper length for better reception or transmission. It probably won’t be long until companies offer cases with conductive contacts for antenna accessories that enhance the reception of the iPhone 4 beyond anything we’ve seen before. To be small enough for mobile devices, antennas are usually hindered and limited by smaller size. This isn’t the case with the iPhone 4 exposed antenna array.

Obviously, the conductivity of of the human hand on a bare antenna will vary depending on the person’s skin moisture and other factors, but it’s likely to influence reception and transmission. Any metal objects shorting between antennas could present a problem.

Radio transmitters are designed to have a specific antenna length. For example, owners of Citizen’s Band (CB) radios are advised not to use the radio until a properly tuned antenna is attached or else the radio may overheat and burn out. Most people know that an automatically extending radio antenna on a car will not receive FM radio properly until it has extended to the optimal length. As the antenna extends, reception gradually improves. The antenna length is set to be a fraction of the average wavelength for FM radio. These are things most people know intuitively through experience.

For these reasons, the colorful bumpers offered by Apple seemed to be more of a necessity than an optional accessory. Yet, such is the case with most electronic devices today for anyone wanting to protect them. This is probably why Apple doesn’t include them for free with the phone. Consumers will undoubtedly want to pick their own case, and Apple doesn’t want to cut into the sales of third party manufacturers who offer a wide variety of protective case options.

I was sure that other consumers and those in the press would have at least a basic knowledge of antenna technology, but apparently that wasn’t the case. Those predisposed to malign Apple’s reputation (competitors and haters) used this as an opportunity to launch a hoax on unsuspecting consumers and a smear campaign against Apple. The hoax aspect of this story is to suggest that reception problems are new, since reception issues have been present with every radio transmitter, receiver, and transceiver since the 1800s and this includes AM, FM, CB, Shortwave, Long-wave, television, and mobile phones.

The supposed reception issue with the iPhone 4 is nothing new. The 3GS and other mobile phones have similar variations in reception quality and signal strength depending on how they are held, as illustrated below.” ~ Gregory Johnson

Video Commentary. Below is a video commentary updated to include the latest news of the 16 July 2010 Apple press conference regarding the iPhone 4 antenna reception.

Apple iPhone 3GS Signal Strength Variations. Below are before and after photos illustrating variations in the iPhone 3GS signal reception as influenced by being held in the hand. These same results can be duplicated on numerous other mobile phone brands as demonstrated and documented by Apple on their mobile device consumer information and education page.

Pictured here is the iPhone 3GS with a full 5-bars of signal strength prior to being held in the hand.

Pictured here is the same iPhone 3GS in the same location being held in the hand which produces a drop in signal strength to 2-bars or sometimes 3-bars depending on the position of the iPhone in the hand.

Statement from Apple Regarding iPhone 4 Reception. Below is the official statement from Apple, issued 2 July 2010, regarding the iPhone 4 reception issue. [source]

Letter from Apple Regarding iPhone 4

Dear iPhone 4 Users,

The iPhone 4 has been the most successful product launch in Apple’s history. It has been judged by reviewers around the world to be the best smartphone ever, and users have told us that they love it. So we were surprised when we read reports of reception problems, and we immediately began investigating them. Here is what we have learned.

To start with, gripping almost any mobile phone in certain ways will reduce its reception by 1 or more bars. This is true of iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, as well as many Droid, Nokia and RIM phones. But some users have reported that iPhone 4 can drop 4 or 5 bars when tightly held in a way which covers the black strip in the lower left corner of the metal band. This is a far bigger drop than normal, and as a result some have accused the iPhone 4 of having a faulty antenna design.

At the same time, we continue to read articles and receive hundreds of emails from users saying that iPhone 4 reception is better than the iPhone 3GS. They are delighted. This matches our own experience and testing. What can explain all of this?

We have discovered the cause of this dramatic drop in bars, and it is both simple and surprising.

Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong. Our formula, in many instances, mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength. For example, we sometimes display 4 bars when we should be displaying as few as 2 bars. Users observing a drop of several bars when they grip their iPhone in a certain way are most likely in an area with very weak signal strength, but they don’t know it because we are erroneously displaying 4 or 5 bars. Their big drop in bars is because their high bars were never real in the first place.

To fix this, we are adopting AT&T’s recently recommended formula for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal strength. The real signal strength remains the same, but the iPhone’s bars will report it far more accurately, providing users a much better indication of the reception they will get in a given area. We are also making bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to see.

We will issue a free software update within a few weeks that incorporates the corrected formula. Since this mistake has been present since the original iPhone, this software update will also be available for the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 3G.

We have gone back to our labs and retested everything, and the results are the same— the iPhone 4’s wireless performance is the best we have ever shipped. For the vast majority of users who have not been troubled by this issue, this software update will only make your bars more accurate. For those who have had concerns, we apologize for any anxiety we may have caused.

As a reminder, if you are not fully satisfied, you can return your undamaged iPhone to any Apple Retail Store or the online Apple Store within 30 days of purchase for a full refund.

We hope you love the iPhone 4 as much as we do.

Thank you for your patience and support.

Apple

Press Contacts:
Natalie Harrison
Apple
harri@apple.com
(408) 862-0565
Steve Dowling
Apple
dowling@apple.com
(408) 974-1896

* * *

Document History. This document was originally published on 2 July 2010. It was revised and republished on 20100708fr2140. This document was updated on 20100716fr to include news of the 16 July 2010 Apple press conference.

Summary. An abundance of computer programs and content is written to be fully compatible with HTML or a specific operating system such as Apple OSX, Apple iOS 4, Google Android, Microsoft Windows, and/or Ubuntu Linux without requiring third-party supporting software to operate.

However, programmers have the option to write programs and content to be compatible with virtual platforms such as Adobe Air, Adobe Flash, Adobe Reader, Adobe Shockwave, Yahoo! BrowserPlus, Microsoft Silverlight, and others. These virtual environments are similar to programming languages like Java. The benefits and drawbacks of virtual environments for programmers and users are listed on this page.

Steve Jobs on Adobe Flash. The comments made by Steve Jobs regarding Adobe Flash are actually applicable to a wide range of third-part plugins and virtual environments.

Commentary by Gregory Johnson. Below is a commentary by Gregory Johnson on this topic.

“I’m concerned when I see Adobe taking a larger share of the market for content development software. For example, Dreamweaver, part of Adobe Creative Suite, is now the predominant website development tool, and Adobe PDF files have become the de facto standard for document sharing.

Now that Adobe has a quasi monopoly, they are charging about $2000 for their Creative Suite package and $450 for their Acrobat Professional product. For those who can’t afford $450, Adobe is offering an online PDF creation service for about $40 per month or $390 per year (if paid annually). This doesn’t make content creation and distribution easy, inexpensive, or accessible for programmers or content creators. The average person just can’t afford these programs. So, this means that only large companies can really afford to be content shareholders.

I’d prefer to see standards such as HTML5 adopted more broadly, as well as open source Content Management Systems (CMS) platforms like WordPress used. Consider that the ability to encode and read MP3 audio or Rich Text File (RTF) documents is free and in the public domain. As a society, we should not adopt proprietary standards and systems that are privately held and only made available at prices that seem like extortion.

By comparison, consider everything that Apple offers in their iLife and iWork suites at little or no cost to consumers. Apple offers tiered software solutions for just about every user. For example, at about $80 for Apple’s iLife software suite, users can compose music and produce professional quality videos. Those wanting more features can pay $200 for Final Cut Express, or $1000 for Final Cut Studio. Adobe doesn’t offer scalable low-end products for consumers.

Wheelchairs cost thousands of dollars, not because the materials or manufacturing costs are so high, but because those who need them will pay whatever it costs. Programmers will pay whatever it costs when one company has a virtual monopoly on content creation software.”

Virtual Platform Benefits. Here are some of the perceived benefits of virtual platforms and plugins, along with clarifying remarks.

• Better Content. Over the years, Internet web pages have been fairly static, being limited to text, pictures, and sometimes embedded video, but not too much interactive content. Virtual platforms allow websites to contain rich, dynamic, and interactive content.
  • This is actually a fallacy. Content isn’t made better, although the presentation of the information might appear to be more flashy. With new HTML standards, it’s not necessary to have a plugin for specialized content.
• Cost Diffusion. With virtual programming platforms, a handful of larger companies like Adobe, Google, or Yahoo! can pay for the development costs and program certification costs to get their virtual operating environment working and certified on various platforms. The smaller programmers can focus simply on programming.
  • This is partly untrue since programmers may still end up needing to write their programs or content to be compatible with multiple plugins and not all programs can run in a plugin or virtual environment. Software suites from Adobe can cost up to $2,000 for a complete package.
• Easier Programming. Products like BrowserPlus or Adobe Air create a little virtual environment where programs can run independent of what operating system they are being hosted in. The advantage is that a programmer can write a program once and know that it will run on Apple, Linux, Windows, and mobile devices. So, rather than write a program for Windows and then rewrite it for Apple, the programmer can write it once.
• Greater Accessibility. These virtual platforms allow users to gain access to hundreds of programs regardless of what computer or device they are on.
  • This isn’t the whole story. The fact is that not all programs are available in the virtual platform environment. Some programs that a user really likes may only be available for their own operating system.
• Group Bargaining. Like a group insurance policy, lobbyist group, or union, when Adobe, Google, or Yahoo approach Microsoft with a new version of their virtual programming environment, they have a lot of bargaining power, much more than an individual programmer or smaller software company.
  • This is only partly true. Programmers must now interact one-on-one with smaller companies for support, training, and program certification.
• More Democratic. Having numerous platforms and virtual platforms to choose from makes the world more democratic.
  • This is a fallacy, since ultimately there are only a few free-standing operating systems that are predominantly used. Having additional required layers on top of the operating system simply means you now have two bosses to answer to.
• Reduced Cost. From a programmer standpoint, because computer and device operating systems are vastly different, writing a program for multiple platforms is very time consuming and costly because the training, continuing education, and program certification costs are high. These costs get passed on to the consumer.
  • This is partly untrue since programmers may still end up needing to write their programs or content to be compatible with multiple plugins and not all programs can run in a plugin or virtual environment. Software suites from Adobe can cost up to $2,000 for a complete package. Even a simple program like Adobe Acrobat Pro is about $450.
• Richer Content. When made accessible through a browser, users are able to see content that is much richer and dynamic than a static HTML based web page.
  • This is a fallacy. In the past HTML content was relatively static. Today it is much more interactive, dynamic, and media rich.
• Security Benefits. Supposedly, virtual programming environments could be more secure since they can alert users to privacy or security issues that their operating system might not otherwise be aware of. They can create an additional firewall between the program and the user’s computer.
  • This is a fallacy. Additional layers inserted between the programs and the operating system create an additional opportunity for malware, spyware, viruses, and hackers to access the computer.
• Standardization. When programs are written to run on different operating systems, users must typically become accustom to a new way of working with the program. However, within a virtual environment, the user experience can remain the same.
  • This is a misrepresentation. It has been demonstrated with programs like Microsoft Office and other programs written for multiple operating systems that the user experience can be much the same for a program. Additionally, some users really like the interface peculiarities of Apple, Linux, or Windows and don’t want to be forced into a new user, non-standard, and unfamiliar interface they must adapt to.
• User Benefits. When searching for programs, people typically look for software that runs on their operating system such as Apple OSX, Apple iOS 4, Google Android, Microsoft Windows, or Ubuntu Linux. Those having multiple computers and devices running different operating systems often must buy multiple copies of a program. When users buy, or become dependent upon, products written to run on a virtual platform, they can be assured the program will run on multiple devices and operating systems.
  • This isn’t entirely true. Today, many purchased or downloaded programs can be installed on multiple platforms.

Plugin and Virtual Platform Drawbacks. Below are some of the drawbacks with virtual platforms.

• Constrained Programs. Programs written directly for an operating system can take full advantage of the device they are running on and can also be controlled and monitored by the operating system. Programs written for a plugin or virtual platform are constrained by it.
• Content Addressing Problems. With standard Internet content, each page has an address. For websites written in Adobe Flash (for example), the website loads like a program in your browser window. In many cases, the forward and back buttons of your browser cease to exist, and specific information you are viewing can’t be addressed by a unique URL (unless the site is written with different pages each having Flash content). So, writing citations or simply referring a friend to something on the Internet becomes much more complicated, “When you go to the site, click on the little blue ball, then follow the menu over, then pick the third option, then go to that page, then start the animation, then once that’s done…” You get the idea.
• Bloating. There’s a desire to make computers simpler, and keep the list of installed programs to a minimum. Today, a typical user will need Adobe Air, Adobe Flash, Adobe Reader, Adobe Shockwave, Yahoo! BrowserPlus, Microsoft Silverlight and numerous other virtual programming environments to access programs and content designed on those platforms. It just clutters up the user’s computer.
• Limited Content Access. Let’s say there’s a website you really like. However, the computer you are on doesn’t have the necessary plugins to make it load. If it’s a public computer, you may not have the rights to install the plugins or virtual platform required to make it work. You may be on a device that isn’t compatible with the third-party virtual platform or plugin.
• Management Intensive. Rather than just having to worry about their own operating system, now the user has all these programs that don’t really run on their computer, at least not without the latest plugin or virtual environment. So, now the user must maintain, update, and manage numerous programs such as Adobe Air, Adobe Flash, Adobe Reader, Adobe Shockwave, Yahoo! BrowserPlus, Microsoft Silverlight.
• Parasite Programs. Parasites are organisms that can’t live on their own. Parasite programs are programs that can’t simply be installed and work on their own. Stability and security poblems with the host will be replicated to the parasite. These problems must be managed in addition to the existing problems with the operating system and primary platform.
• Processor Intensive. Have you ever noticed how your computer fan speeds up when the processor starts overheating? This often happens when using media intensive programs running on third party virtual platforms.
• Security Issues. The promise of virtual environments is that they can offer a firewall between a program and the user’s computer. Instead, multiple virtual platforms simply create a larger number of entry points into a user’s computer. In addition, security vulnerabilities are constantly an issue, and this requires that users update the large number of third party virtual platforms that are popular today. All that updating takes time and Internet bandwidth. Third party applications, friendly or malicious, may request Internet access through a hosting virtual environment. Your operating system may or may not notify you that the already trusted virtual environment wants Internet access. This circumvents firewall controls. Friendly applications using the virtual environment are indistinguishable from hostile and malicious programs which can use the same Firewall exceptions. As a result, program-level security controls and logging are circumvented.
• Speed Issues. Plugins and virtual environments create a layer of middle management in your computer that can slow things down. Programs running directly on top of your operating system can, theoretically, be much faster.
• Standards Chaos. Today, because more and more companies are writing content that is dependent upon third party software, to browse the Internet, a typical user will need Adobe Air, Adobe Flash, Adobe Reader, Adobe Shockwave, Yahoo! BrowserPlus, Microsoft Silverlight and numerous other virtual programming environments. Rather than having everyone develop programs and content using the HTML5 standard, these companies, out of a desire for more market share, continue to compete for programmer loyalty.

Recommendation. The recommendation for users and programmers regarding third-party plugins and virtual development platforms is to avoid them.

As programmers, consider what your goals are before exploring how flashy and colorful you can make a program. For example, many of the goals a programmer is trying to achieve can be met through HTML5 or simple programming that is able to run directly on top of an operating system, then use that.

Have you ever received an email with an attachment that required some other program to open it? By the time you get the specialized program required to open the attachment, you realize that its contents could have very easily been copied and pasted into the email as standard text.

The same is true when visiting websites that require special plugins and software to work. By the time you get your computer configured to view and access the site, you realize they could have presented the same information in using a standard HTML web page.

“I was on Dell’s website today [12 July 2010] and accidentally clicked on the Dell Download Manager instead of choosing to have an instantaneous HTML compatible download of a file. Well, the Dell Download Manager needs the Microsoft .Net Framework to run. So, I had to install that first, but the .Net installation had an error. What could have been a simple download, took much more time. The implementation of multiple layers of applications on top of HTML can really be frustrating and time consuming. Often it’s not what’s best for the consumer.” ~ Greg Johnson

Conclusion. Most plugins are unnecessary and just create an additional step for the user with more programs to update and mange on their computer. We don’t need more programming languages, plugins, and virtual platforms. We need a standard like HTML5 that is open.

Summary. Consumers face many challenges when trying to research products and make purchasing decisions. This document provides an overview of these challenges and offers some suggestions.

• Aggregate Reviews Needed. Most reviews are done by individuals testing a single unit. It would be more accurate to have information about a large number of units tested by many people. For example, if one very vocal reviewer like Walt Mossberg gets a defective unit, while 100 little known YouTube vloggers get 99 functioning units, the public perception will be that the product is bad, even though there is just a 1% failure rate, because reviews by mainstream media journalists influence more people.
• Differing Model Numbers. Some products are available in so many different model numbers that it’s hard to find a review for the specific one you can find at your local store. Computers are a good example. Some computer manufacturers will change model numbers depending on who is selling the product. So, the model available at Best Buy could be different than the one sold at Staples. Fitness equipment is another product line that is sometimes sold exclusively to certain outlets. So, a certain model ProForm elliptical machine sold at Sears might not be available anywhere else. Similar products may be reviewed by Consumer reports, but the differences are significant between models.
• Fake Comments and Product Reviews. The Internet is full of fake comments and product reviews. Some companies pay people to write good reviews of their own products and negative reviews of their competitor products. Consumers have trouble knowing what reviews are genuine and which ones are paid. Learn more by reading our document on Internet Authenticity and Accountability of Advertising Reviews and Content.
• Long-Term Usage and Durability Reviews Needed. There are many feature reviews available that describe what a product can do. However, these feature reviews are usually done over a short period of time. A person could simply visit a product page on the manufacturer’s website to find the information presented in most product reviews. What’s needed are long-term real-world evaluations of products to test reliability (does it work all the time) and durability (is it sturdy).
• Personal Preference. The usefulness and value of many products is widely dependent upon personal preference. Skechers Shape-Ups shoes are a good example of this. Some people love them, while others hate them. It’s a matter of personal preference. It’s hard for many reviewers to offer a balanced unbiased presentation of products in a way that takes into consideration the diverse preferences and needs of consumers. A quality review is more than just one person’s opinion of a product. It should be more like a journalist impartially reporting on a product.
• Short Product Life Cycles. Products typically have a one year life cycle. So, most reviews are about products that simply aren’t available anymore, or will soon be replaced by a new model. Rather than reviewing specific product models, it’s more meaningful to have a review that looks at a product line if possible.
• User Error. Products should be designed to reduce user confusion or damage from misuse. However, this isn’t always possible. Many negative reviews are the result of user error.

Summary. The song What About Now by Daughtry has been hugely popular for it’s inspirational and motivational message about making a difference in the world.

At a time when the world is in crisis on a large-scale level as well as down to the individual level, this video paints a picture of the challenges we face, yet it also presents hopeful solutions and images of people who are making a difference in the world.

Video. The music video (below) has had over 3 million views. Use the volume control as needed to adjust the sound level. You can click the [x] in the upper right corner of the advertisement in the video to close it and move it out of the way.

Lyrics. Below are the lyrics to What About Now by Daughtry.

Shadows fill an empty heart
As love is fading,
From all the things that we are
But are not saying.
Can we see beyond the stars
And make it to the dawn?

Change the colors of the sky.
And open up to
The ways you made me feel alive,
The ways I loved you.
For all the things that never died,
To make it through the night,
Love will find you.

What about now?
What about today?
What if you’re making me all that I was meant to be?
What if our love never went away?
What if it’s lost behind words we could never find?
Baby, before it’s too late,
What about now?

The sun is breaking in your eyes
To start a new day.
This broken heart can still survive
With a touch of your grace.
Shadows fade into the light.
I am by your side,
Where love will find you.

What about now?
What about today?
What if you’re making me all that I was meant to be?
What if our love, it never went away?
What if it’s lost behind words we could never find?
Baby, before it’s too late,
What about now?

Now that we’re here,
Now that we’ve come this far,
Just hold on.
There is nothing to fear,
For I am right beside you.
For all my life,
I am yours.

What about now?
What about today?
What if you’re making me all that I was meant to be?
What if our love never went away?
What if it’s lost behind words we could never find?

What about now?
What about today?
What if you’re making me all that I was meant to be?
What if our love never went away?
What if it’s lost behind words we could never find?
Baby, before it’s too late,
Baby, before it’s too late,
Baby, before it’s too late,
What about now?

Summary. The song How to Save a Life by The Fray was influenced by band member Isaac Slade who worked as a mentor at a camp for troubled teens. The song was the title song for the album How to Save a Life.

The song has sold over two million downloads. The music video of the song (below) has been viewed over 10 million times. It is one of the fifth longest charting singles on the Billboard Hot 100, at 58 consecutive weeks.

Music Video. The music video of the song (below) shows images and videos of troubled youth combined with words and other images that convey how delicate life is. The green caterpillar shown here on the piano keyboard is juxtaposed to the image of a butterfly elsewhere in the video. You can click the [x] in the upper right corner of the advertisement in the video to close it and move it out of the way.

Lyrics. Below are the lyrics to How to Save a Life by The Fray.

Step one you say we need to talk
He walks you say sit down it’s just a talk
He smiles politely back at you
You stare politely right on through
Some sort of window to your right
As he goes left and you stay right
Between the lines of fear and blame
You begin to wonder why you came

CHORUS:
Where did I go wrong, I lost a friend
Somewhere along in the bitterness
And I would have stayed up with you all night
Had I known how to save a life

Let him know that you know best
Cause after all you do know best
Try to slip past his defense
Without granting innocence
Lay down a list of what is wrong
The things you’ve told him all along
And pray to God he hears you
And pray to God he hears you

CHORUS:
Where did I go wrong, I lost a friend
Somewhere along in the bitterness
And I would have stayed up with you all night
Had I known how to save a life

As he begins to raise his voice
You lower yours and grant him one last choice
Drive until you lose the road
Or break with the ones you’ve followed
He will do one of two things
He will admit to everything
Or he’ll say he’s just not the same
And you’ll begin to wonder why you came

CHORUS:
Where did I go wrong, I lost a friend
Somewhere along in the bitterness
And I would have stayed up with you all night
Had I known how to save a life

CHORUS:
Where did I go wrong, I lost a friend
Somewhere along in the bitterness
And I would have stayed up with you all night
Had I known how to save a life
How to save a life
How to save a life

CHORUS:
Where did I go wrong, I lost a friend
Somewhere along in the bitterness
And I would have stayed up with you all night
Had I known how to save a life

CHORUS:
Where did I go wrong, I lost a friend
Somewhere along in the bitterness
And I would have stayed up with you all night
Had I known how to save a life
How to save a life

Summary. The music video Some People Change by Montgomery Gentry is an inspirational video about how people can turn their lives around.

One examples given in the video is of a young man who’d been raised to have racist beliefs.

The other example is of a woman (pictured here) who turns away from a life of alcohol addiction. At the moment when she makes this decision, she opens the window and bright white light rushes into her life.

The lyrics to the song, and the music video are included below.

Video. Below is the music video of Some People Change by Montgomery Gentry. You can click the [x] in the upper right corner of the advertisement in the video to close it and move it out of the way.

Lyrics. Below are the lyrics to the song Some People Change by Montgomery Gentry.

His old man was a rebel yeller:
Bad boy to the bone.
He’d say: “Can’t trust that other fella,”
He’d judge ‘em by the tone of their skin.
He was raised to think like his Dad:
Narrow mind full of hate.
On the road to no-where fast,
Till the Grace of God got in the way.
Then he saw the Light an’ hit his knees an’ cried an’ said a prayer:
Rose up a brand new man; left the old one right there.

Here’s to the strong; thanks to the brave.
Don’t give up hope: some people change.
Against all odds, against the grain,
Love finds a way: some people change.

She was born with her mother’s habit:
You could say: “It’s in her blood.”
She hates that she’s gotta have it:
As she fills her glass up.
An she’d love to kill that bottle,
But all she can think about,
Is a, a better life, a second chance,
An’ everyone she’s letting down.
She throws that bottle down.

Here’s to the strong; thanks to the brave.
Don’t give up hope: some people change.
Against all odds, against the grain,
Love finds a way: some people change.

Thank God for those who make it:
Let them be the Light.

(Let them be the light)
(Some people change.)
Here’s to the strong; thanks to the brave.
Don’t give up hope: some people change.
Against all odds, against the grain,
Love finds a way: some people change.
Some people change.

(Some people change)